Young American adults' assessment of the risks associated with nuclear power was examined by using data from the Longitudinal Study of American Youth (LSAY). A structural equation model was estimated using LISREL8 to examine the development of young adults' attitudes toward nuclear power. Many factors that have been associated with general attitudes toward science and technology were found to have no effect on young adults' assessment of the risks of nuclear power. Science achievement, academic science attitudes, and enrolment in high school and college science courses were found to have no effect on young adults' attitudes. Twelfth grade students who believed that the risks of nuclear power were relatively low were more likely to hold the same beliefs as young adults. Plans to have a career in science, mathematics, or engineering in grade twelve had the second greatest total effects, while gender's total effects were nearly identical in magnitude. Partisan identification had the fourth greatest total effects on attitudes about the risks of nuclear power. Peer science push, parent college push, parent science push, and parent education had lesser, but significant effects on the attitudes of young adults about the risks of nuclear power.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Van der Pligt, J. , and Midden, C. J. H., 1990, Chernobyl, four years later: attitudes, risk management and communication. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 10, 91-99.
2.
Nealey, S. M. , Melber, B. D., and Rankin, W. L., 1983, Public Opinion and Nuclear Energy (Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books, D. C. Health).
3.
Miller, J. D. , 1983, The American People and Science Policy: The Role of Public Attitudes in the Policy Process (New York: Pergamon), p. 106.
4.
Trankina, M. , 1993, Gender differences in attitudes toward science. Psychological Reports, 73, 123-130.
5.
Solomon, L. S. , Tomaskovic-Devey, D., and Risman, B. J., 1989, The gender gap and nuclear power: attitudes in a politicized environment. Sex Roles, 21, 401-414.
6.
Solomon, L. S. , Tomaskovic-Devey, D., and Risman, B. J., 1989, The gender gap and nuclear power: attitudes in a politicized environment. Sex Roles, 21, 401-414.
7.
Shapiro, R. Y. , and Mahajan, H., 1986, Gender differences in policy preferences: a summary of trends from the 1960s to the 1980s. Public Opinion Quarterly, 50, 42-61.
8.
Norris, P. , 1988, The gender gap: a cross-national trend. The Politics of the Gender Gap: The Social Construction of Political Influence, edited by C. M. Mueller (Newbury Park, NJ: Sage), pp. 217-234.
9.
See also: Miller, J. D., 1983, The American People and Science Policy: The Role of Public Attitudes in the Policy Process (New York: Pergamon).
10.
See also: Solomon, L. S., Tomaskovic-Devey, D., and Risman, B. J., 1989, The gender gap and nuclear power: Attitudes in a politicized environment. Sex Roles, 21, 401-414.
11.
Bisconti, A. S. , and Livingston, R. L., 1992, Communicating with the Public About Radiation (Washington, DC: US Council for Energy Awareness).
12.
Cater, H. L. Jr, 1972, The identification of factors influencing college students' attitudes toward radioactivity. Dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.
13.
Nealey, S. M. , Melber, B. D., and Rankin, W. L.; 1983, Public Opinion and Nuclear Energy (Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books, D. C. Health), p. 48.
14.
Hensler, D. R. , and Hensler, C., 1979, Evaluating Nuclear Power: Voter Choice on the California Nuclear Energy Initiative (Santa Monica, CA: Rand).
15.
Miller, J. D. , 1992, The Public Understanding of Science and Technology in the United States, 1990. Report to the National Science Foundation (Washington, DC: Division of Science Resources Studies, National Science Foundation).
16.
Jasper, J. M. , and Nelkin, D., 1992, The Animal Rights Crusade: The Growth of a Moral Protest (New York: Free Press).
17.
Kuklinski, J. H. , Metlay, D. S., and Kay, W. D., 1982, Citizen knowledge and choices on the complex issue of nuclear energy. American Journal of Political Science, 26, 615-642.
18.
The LSAY was funded by the National Science Foundation (grant MDR-8550085). The analysis and conclusions presented in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation or its staff.
19.
See also: Miller, J. D., Pifer, L. K., and Ressmeyer, T. J., 1994, Public Attitudes Toward Science and Technology, 1979-1992: Integrated Codebook (Chicago, Ill.: The Chicago Academy of Sciences).
20.
Miller, J. D. , Pifer, L. K., and Ressmeyer, T. J., 1994, Public Attitudes Toward Science and Technology, 1979-1992: Integrated Codebook (Chicago, Ill.: The Chicago Academy of Sciences).
21.
See also: Bronfenbrenner, U., 1986, Ecology of the family as a context for human development: research perspectives. Developmental Psychology, 22, 723-742.
22.
Pifer, L. , and Miller, J. D., 1995, The development of trust in science among young adults: a longitudinal analysis. Presented at the American Association for the Advancement of Science Annual Meeting, Atlanta, Georgia.
23.
See also: Miller, J. D., and Green, H., 1994, The influence of family and home on student persistence and achievement in science and mathematics. Paper presented at the 1994 Conference of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, Louisiana.
24.
Reynolds, A. J. , and Walberg, H. J., 1991; A structural model of science achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 97-107.
25.
Pifer, L., and Miller, J. D., 1995, The development of trust in science among young adults: a longitudinal analysis. Presented at the American Association for the Advancement of Science Annual Meeting, Atlanta, Georgia. The ordering of this variable, prior to other variables measured at the same time, was due to theoretical reasoning. The model was estimated once placing career interest in the same block as the other variables measured in 1989 to make certain that the order in the conceptual model did not artificially inflate the effects of career interest. In this version of the model, none of the total effects changed by more than 0.01. The fit of this model did not fit the data as well as the conceptual model, with a chi square to degrees of freedom ratio of 1.83 (124.55/68), and an RMSEA of 0.023.
26.
See also: Miller, J. D., 1992, The Public Understanding of Science and Technology in the United States, 1990. Report to the National Science Foundation (Washington, DC: Division of Science Resources Studies, National Science Foundation).
27.
See also: Miller, J. D., 1992, The Public Understanding of Science and Technology in the United States, 1990. Report to the National Science Foundation (Washington, DC: Division of Science Resources Studies, National Science Foundation).
28.
Miller, J. D. , and Brown, K. G., 1992, The development of career expectations by American youth. Adolescence, Careers, and Cultures, edited by W. Meeus, M. de Godede, W. Kox, and K. Hurrelmann (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter), pp. 217-241.
29.
Joreskog, K. , and Sorbom, D., 1993, LISREL8: Structural Equation Modeling with the SIMPLIS Command Language (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum).
30.
Loehlin, J. , 1987, Latent Variable Models (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum).
31.
The R2s for the intervening latent constructs are as follows: home resources, 0.28; parent college push, 0.48; parent science push, 0.11; peer push, 0.09; career choice, 0.37; expected education, 0.64; academic science attitude, 0.31; high school laboratory courses, 0.35; nuclear power attitudes in year 3, 0.12; science achievement, 0.26; college science courses, 0.25; and partisan identification, 0.09. The following are the standardized beta coefficients for the across equation correlations, or reciprocal relationships, that were estimated in the model: parent science push and home science resources, 0.11; parent science push and parent college push, 0.10; peer science push and parent science push, 0.21; science achievement and expected education, 0.16; high school science courses and academic science attitudes, 0.14; science achievement and academic science attitudes, 0.20; science achievement and high school science courses, 0.17.
32.
See also, Sears, D. O., and Huddy, L., 1988, On the origins of the political disunity of women. Paper presented at the meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, Illinois.
33.
See also: Burns, N. E., Schumaker, P., 1987, Gender differences in attitudes about the role of local government. Social Science Quarterly, 68, 138-147.
34.
Deitch, C. , 1988, Sex differences in support for government spending. The Politics of the Gender Gap: The Social Construction of Political Influence, edited by C. M. Mueller (Newbury Park, NJ: Sage), pp. 192-216.
